::red7ring's Useless Information :-: Working for your Game Experience::

(please put any and all spoilers in spoiler tags for the purpose of keeping this thread a good discussion. Spoiler tags are, without spaces, [ spoiler = spoiler title ] [ /spoiler ] Please title your spoilers to reflect what games/game details might be spoiled.)

This thread was inspired by my recent playthrough of Mass Effect 3. After seeing the conclusion, I read about the possible reasons for the way things unfold like they do. I realized that all my thoughts about being betrayed as a loyal fan and the idea that "I know better than the developer what should have happened" seems as ridiculous to me now as it always was.

Artistic direction is a constant force in videogames. Someone plans out a great journey, full of emotion, action, visuals, story, and interactivity. They create this journey, and when they finish it, go back to the start and put a controller in your hands. You, the gamer, play through their game, taking in as much of the emotion, action, visual beauty, and story through the interactivity as you possibly can.At least, that’s what’s supposed to happen. Story in games today can be like easter eggs: there for the players to find, but they have to put forth some effort. There are people in this lobby who have been far better listeners than I when it comes to this. They listened to conversations between NPCs, and bits and pieces of story were pulled into focus through those conversations. I think of that as something amazing, that story is hiding under your nose, like invisible threads linking the game universe together in so many ways.

Sometimes a game throws things in front of you so you can’t avoid them. Infamous 2’s decisions near the end of the game give you clear cut choices with clear cut outcomes. No real side-stories or tangents to get lost in. The story in games like Call of Duty or Uncharted are largely the same. People playing the games don’t really have to THINK. They can just sit back and experience everything.

You might argue that you have to think all the time in videogames. You have to duck, cover, roll, shoot, plan your attack, draw lines in the sand, etc.. Most of that is just reaction to what the game throws your way. Planning out how to complete a task is rudimentary. There are only a handful of games that really push you to think in more than just a “what am I going to do” way, or a “how do I find the best weapon or easter egg” way. The Assassin’s Creed series delves into this, to a point. There are easter eggs there, as I’m sure most who’ve played it know. What matters, what changes it, is that in each of those, there is meaning. It links back not just to the story, but to the game universe, and in many cases, our universe. It can spawn whole lines of thought that run in tandem to the story, and sometimes span far from it.

Is it coincidence that these discussions on tangents happen or that they can happen? We all know developers and designers put a huge amount of effort into making the masterpieces we push into our gaming systems. How much do you put into playing them? Games are made for our enjoyment, but they can be much more than something to watch onscreen. Does that mean you have to be more attentive? I felt so after reading up on Mass Effect. I realized I had skipped completely over most of the signs that other people had seen easily in the course of their playthrough.

We’ve had discussions before about how videogames are art, how important they are as an entertainment medium. Does that mean we must have missed something if we don’t appreciate them? Should developers make everything simple and easy so we don’t? How well you pay attention to the game you’re playing can impact your experience. I like that, and I’ve been at fault for not paying attention to what’s going on. But how far can developers take this initiative?

I’ve raised a few questions, so I’ll try to boil it down to this: To appreciate the game a developer puts out, should you have to work as you play? How much effort should a gamer need to put in to what they do in order to get the real experience?

Please, as always with my UI threads, don’t post if you’re just here to say that the above was too much for you to handle reading. Flaming of any kind is also not tolerated. This thread is meant for discussion, not defamation. And, as always, Discuss! Whether it be on the topic or related to it, the purpose of these threads is discussion.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure of where you are going with this but you shouldn't need to put an extra effort if you don't care to..

I love the thread and I find it interesting but I think this matter is a concern for maybe two games.. Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect. I don't think it applies to other games.

Out of curiosity, do you see the Eye of Horus in Assassin's Creed as an easter egg?

Click to expand...

The idea that not doing everything doesn't give you a good experience or run of the game. And that to do those things means "work" or "effort" on the players part. So work is needed to experience the game as it was meant.

It does apply to others, I think, but not in such a clear or apparent manner.

The idea that not doing everything doesn't give you a good experience or run of the game. And that to do those things means "work" or "effort" on the players part. So work is needed to experience the game as it was meant.

It does apply to others, I think, but not in such a clear or apparent manner.

And I don't really like easter egg as a term for the ass creed stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes ok.. It really depends on the nature of each gamer. For example, most Assassin's Creed diehard fans do not know where Ubisoft took inspiration for that storyline but they can still appreciate it. Would they appreciate it more if they knew what it really is all about? Maybe.. but not necessarily.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some games offer the possibility for gamers to go deeper but I don't think it's an obligation. You either get the "hidden" message or you don't. Or rather, you want to see it (which may require an additional effort) or you don't. But you never have to..

If the game is awesome I will naturally want to find out everything in it and about it, otherwise I hate doing tedious stuff like reading in Skyrim. I think the reason some stuff is hidden away is to give an option for, and draw a line between people who just want to experience the main game and people who need all the details. I haven't played ME3 but take ME2 for example. Some players will do the main stuff in an area and some people will talk to everyone and explore every dialogue option and then play the game over again to find out more stuff.

The idea that not doing everything doesn't give you a good experience or run of the game. And that to do those things means "work" or "effort" on the players part. So work is needed to experience the game as it was meant.

It does apply to others, I think, but not in such a clear or apparent manner.

And I don't really like easter egg as a term for the ass creed stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes ok.. It really depends on the nature of each gamer. For example, most Assassin's Creed diehard fans do not know where Ubisoft took inspiration for that storyline but they can still appreciate it. Would they appreciate it more if they knew what it really is all about? Maybe.. but not necessarily.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that some games offer the possibility for gamers to go deeper but I don't think it's an obligation. You either get the "hidden" message or you don't. Or rather, you want to see it (which may require an additional effort) or you don't. But you never have to..

Click to expand...

I am a diehard Assassin's Creed fan... I know where they got most, if not all of that information for the story from. Considering I read about it, or have been taught it/told about it/looked it up myself.

I am a diehard Assassin's Creed fan... I know where they got most, if not all of that information for the story from. Considering I read about it, or have been taught it/told about it/looked it up myself.

This thread is almost as pointless as a ZombieZapper thread...

Click to expand...

It's not really though. It's a thread for discussion, not a rumor that was at the top of Kotaku's home page. It also raises a couple of important questions. For example, look at the ending of Mass Effect 3. Most of the people who hated it on the Bioware forums were people who would be considered "diehard" players. They played all the games, all the DLC, read the codex entries, etc. Had they not delved so far into the Mass Effect universe, would they still have been disappointed with the ending? Would they have been aware of the plot holes that it (supposedly) introduces? Is Bioware partially to blame for allowing those players to learn so much about the Mass Effect universe? Likewise, some games are meant to be appreciated at face value. There is no real depth to speak of, and when players try to dig into the story, they find plotholes, common plot devices, etc., and become disappointed at the lack of coherency. Should the developers always try to create a coherent plot, even if it makes the story drag along slower than is intended? Or should they focus on creating a "thrill ride" that may leave questions unanswered?

I am a diehard Assassin's Creed fan... I know where they got most, if not all of that information for the story from. Considering I read about it, or have been taught it/told about it/looked it up myself.

This thread is almost as pointless as a ZombieZapper thread...

Click to expand...

It's not really though. It's a thread for discussion, not a rumor that was at the top of Kotaku's home page. It also raises a couple of important questions. For example, look at the ending of Mass Effect 3. Most of the people who hated it on the Bioware forums were people who would be considered "diehard" players. They played all the games, all the DLC, read the codex entries, etc. Had they not delved so far into the Mass Effect universe, would they still have been disappointed with the ending? Would they have been aware of the plot holes that it (supposedly) introduces? Is Bioware partially to blame for allowing those players to learn so much about the Mass Effect universe? Likewise, some games are meant to be appreciated at face value. There is no real depth to speak of, and when players try to dig into the story, they find plotholes, common plot devices, etc., and become disappointed at the lack of coherency. Should the developers always try to create a coherent plot, even if it makes the story drag along slower than is intended? Or should they focus on creating a "thrill ride" that may leave questions unanswered?

I am a diehard Assassin's Creed fan... I know where they got most, if not all of that information for the story from. Considering I read about it, or have been taught it/told about it/looked it up myself.

This thread is almost as pointless as a ZombieZapper thread...

Click to expand...

It's not really though. It's a thread for discussion, not a rumor that was at the top of Kotaku's home page. It also raises a couple of important questions. For example, look at the ending of Mass Effect 3. Most of the people who hated it on the Bioware forums were people who would be considered "diehard" players. They played all the games, all the DLC, read the codex entries, etc. Had they not delved so far into the Mass Effect universe, would they still have been disappointed with the ending? Would they have been aware of the plot holes that it (supposedly) introduces? Is Bioware partially to blame for allowing those players to learn so much about the Mass Effect universe? Likewise, some games are meant to be appreciated at face value. There is no real depth to speak of, and when players try to dig into the story, they find plotholes, common plot devices, etc., and become disappointed at the lack of coherency. Should the developers always try to create a coherent plot, even if it makes the story drag along slower than is intended? Or should they focus on creating a "thrill ride" that may leave questions unanswered?

After reading the post, the first thing that comes to mind is--to no one's surprise--BioShock. One of my favorite things about that is how cleverly fragmented the story is. You play as Jack and the actual "plotline" is pretty straight forward. Your plane wrecks, you get stuck in an underwater city, and you need to figure out how to get out. What's great is what the game doesn't come out and show you. During each of my 6-8 playthroughs, I've made a discovery about Rapture that has helped shed some light on the setting itself and the characters that inhabit it. I could find some hidden room full of people that murder each other over something ridiculous, or stumble upon an audio diary that reveals how things got so screwed up in the first place.

Now, back to my original point--should the developer weave these things throughout the environment and encourage exploration or throw them at us in order to make sure the player knows what's going on? Doing the latter would make it much easier for someone to enjoy the game, but the game itself would seem to be more contained the "draw you in" power would be weaker. BioShock is a game where scattering this intel undoubtedly works. It offers a more personalized experience of Rapture and makes you feel like you're a part of it all. 2K could have just thrown these idiosyncrasies at us during the main plot, but would that impact us on the same level that stumbling upon them would?

It's not really though. It's a thread for discussion, not a rumor that was at the top of Kotaku's home page. It also raises a couple of important questions. For example, look at the ending of Mass Effect 3. Most of the people who hated it on the Bioware forums were people who would be considered "diehard" players. They played all the games, all the DLC, read the codex entries, etc. Had they not delved so far into the Mass Effect universe, would they still have been disappointed with the ending? Would they have been aware of the plot holes that it (supposedly) introduces? Is Bioware partially to blame for allowing those players to learn so much about the Mass Effect universe? Likewise, some games are meant to be appreciated at face value. There is no real depth to speak of, and when players try to dig into the story, they find plotholes, common plot devices, etc., and become disappointed at the lack of coherency. Should the developers always try to create a coherent plot, even if it makes the story drag along slower than is intended? Or should they focus on creating a "thrill ride" that may leave questions unanswered?

Are you going to wait for a story to be forced on you or are you going to create your own story while discovering others beneath the surface?

It's one of the reasons I love Fallout. Every location has a story whether it's told in the environment, in computer logs, on holodiscs, in notes or in dialogue.

You can consume as much of the story as you want if you're willing to go get it. It's tied into the gameplay. The further you explore a region, the more it's story opens up to you. As the area gets tougher or your skills get you to more secured areas, you get greater pieces of the truth.

Fallout tells tales of employees being phased out by robots, last days of survival, exploration, rebuilding, unexpected calamities, twisted experiments, interoffice politics, betrayal, scandal, I could go on.

Those games are packed with with all manner of story with all manner of outcomes depending on your actions...

I am a diehard Assassin's Creed fan... I know where they got most, if not all of that information for the story from. Considering I read about it, or have been taught it/told about it/looked it up myself.

This thread is almost as pointless as a ZombieZapper thread...

Click to expand...

It's not really though. It's a thread for discussion, not a rumor that was at the top of Kotaku's home page. It also raises a couple of important questions. For example, look at the ending of Mass Effect 3. Most of the people who hated it on the Bioware forums were people who would be considered "diehard" players. They played all the games, all the DLC, read the codex entries, etc. Had they not delved so far into the Mass Effect universe, would they still have been disappointed with the ending? Would they have been aware of the plot holes that it (supposedly) introduces? Is Bioware partially to blame for allowing those players to learn so much about the Mass Effect universe? Likewise, some games are meant to be appreciated at face value. There is no real depth to speak of, and when players try to dig into the story, they find plotholes, common plot devices, etc., and become disappointed at the lack of coherency. Should the developers always try to create a coherent plot, even if it makes the story drag along slower than is intended? Or should they focus on creating a "thrill ride" that may leave questions unanswered?

I feel that if a developer does its job right then the gamer should be able to sit back and get everything that they intended for them to receive. If the gamer has to work to figure out what is going on then it wont lead to a good experience.

I feel that if a developer does its job right then the gamer should be able to sit back and get everything that they intended for them to receive. If the gamer has to work to figure out what is going on then it wont lead to a good experience.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is games should be developed for the simplest minded people..

I know that's not what you meant but not everyone has the ability to appreciate philosophical notions. Some games require a certain level of knowledge to be fully appreciated.

For example, God of War.. if you know and understand Greek mythology, you'll see things other people won't. The developer is not failing because it didn't educate you. Or Gran Turismo.. if you have no mechanic knowledge, you'll probably ignore the most intricate part of the game.

That said, even if you don't have a preset understanding of what the game is about, it is still possible to appreciate it.. depending on your nature. Some people love to learn, others don't. It's not up to the developer to make sure every single soul will fully understand their game.

I feel that if a developer does its job right then the gamer should be able to sit back and get everything that they intended for them to receive. If the gamer has to work to figure out what is going on then it wont lead to a good experience.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is games should be developed for the simplest minded people..

I know that's not what you meant but not everyone has the ability to appreciate philosophical notions. Some games require a certain level of knowledge to be fully appreciated.

For example, God of War.. if you know and understand Greek mythology, you'll see things other people won't. The developer is not failing because it didn't educate you. Or Gran Turismo.. if you have no mechanic knowledge, you'll probably ignore the most intricate part of the game.

That said, even if you don't have a preset understanding of what the game is about, it is still possible to appreciate it.. depending on your nature. Some people love to learn, others don't. It's not up to the developer to make sure every single soul will fully understand their game.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not opposed to steep learning curves and intricate subtleties, especially when the journey is as worthwhile as the destination. I didn't understand Demon's Souls at all when I first started, and they certainly didn't tell me about it. World tendency and BPs, stat scaling and diminishing returns. But learning those intricacies and game mechanics was half of the fun.

I feel that if a developer does its job right then the gamer should be able to sit back and get everything that they intended for them to receive. If the gamer has to work to figure out what is going on then it wont lead to a good experience.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is games should be developed for the simplest minded people..

I know that's not what you meant but not everyone has the ability to appreciate philosophical notions. Some games require a certain level of knowledge to be fully appreciated.

For example, God of War.. if you know and understand Greek mythology, you'll see things other people won't. The developer is not failing because it didn't educate you. Or Gran Turismo.. if you have no mechanic knowledge, you'll probably ignore the most intricate part of the game.

That said, even if you don't have a preset understanding of what the game is about, it is still possible to appreciate it.. depending on your nature. Some people love to learn, others don't. It's not up to the developer to make sure every single soul will fully understand their game.

Click to expand...

Thats not at all what I am saying. Even if you have a complex story, if you tell it right you don't have to overly think what they were trying to go far.

I love complex stories, but for the most part I like to play a game for fun, not to overly think. If I want some critical thinking or something I will read a book or something.

Thats not at all what I am saying. Even if you have a complex story, if you tell it right you don't have to overly think what they were trying to go far.

I love complex stories, but for the most part I like to play a game for fun, not to overly think. If I want some critical thinking or something I will read a book or something.

That said. I totally get what you are saying!

Click to expand...

There's a difference between a complex story and great amounts of lore/content that can't all fit into cutscenes/dialogue.

MGS4 force fed its story to you at the expense of actual gameplay. Skyrim laid its story and lore out in small chunks to be consumed at your leisure within the game itself.

MGS4 required you to pay attention or you would miss important things (Unless you got into the Database). Skyrim simply exists for you to interpret based on how deep you're willing to peer into its lore. I can grab a book and read it or pick up on unfinished talking points with NPCs.

Sure, the developer may have a general story that will be delivered in a direct manner, but as games get bigger and more realized with mountains of lore, it becomes too much to present directly to the player. It has to be laid out in a more casual manner...

I'd rather discover lore/historical events pertaining to the game instead of it being forced upon me. It adds an extra incentive to explore more intricately instead of rushing through the game. Mass Effect, and Fallout are good at that. Haven't played any of the Elder Scrolls games, but I'd imagine they fit into that as well.